Support NeoGAF

[Poetic.Injustice]

If there’s one thing Jed Wheeler and Marcus Ruiz Evans agree on, it’s that things in California need to change.

The state sends too much money to Washington, they say, and is both politically and culturally out of step with a country that lacks its openness and vitality.

“We can solve our own problems and don’t need to wait on a government 3,000 miles away,” said Wheeler, echoing Evans’ suggestion that Democratic-leaning California would be far better off going it alone as a separate country.

They sharply disagree, though, on the matter of how and precisely when California should seek a divorce from the other 49 states.

Evans is pushing a ballot measure that would put the question of secession before voters in 2018, believing the time has never been so ripe to form a breakaway nation. Wheeler is working to create a pro-secession political party, looking a dozen or more years down the road when its candidates hold office, and fears that a premature vote would undermine the effort.

In short, the effort to cleave California faces a crackup of its own.

At least four proposals are floating about to reshape the state in some fashion, including two that would split up California along different axes. All work at cross-purposes, and the result is varied degrees of hostility among proponents; none of the plans seems likely to reach fruition anytime soon, if ever.

Evans, 40, a former government affairs consultant now working full-time on the “Calexit” campaign, insisted a robust signature-gathering process was underway, engaging thousands of volunteers in 82 chapters across the state. However, the precise number collected was unknown, he said, because of the loose structure of his pro-secession group, Yes California.

“Some are mailing them in. Some are holding them. Some are taking them directly to their county registrar of voters,” he said. Asked to assess the odds of making the ballot, Evans responded, “Good. I won’t say great.”

The effort, uphill from the start, has not been helped, he said, by reports linking the Calexit movement to Russia, which Evans called preposterous and unfair. The co-leader of Yes California is Louis Marinelli, a former San Diego-area Assembly candidate now teaching English in Russia, where, among promotional activities, he appeared last fall at a Kremlin-backed pro-secession conference in Moscow.

“It has definitely been damaging to us getting big donors and hurting our ability to bring on new members because of clouding the issue without accurately reporting all the facts,” Evans said, citing the organization’s 44,000 “likes” on Facebook as just one example.

Nor, he said, was it beneficial when Nigel Farage, a leading proponent of Britain’s exit from the European Union and prominent Trump supporter, recently flitted into California to talk up a vague plan to split the state down the middle, creating a coastal “West California” and interior “East California.”
“They’re trying to confuse people,” Evans huffed. “Classic Trump.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-secession-20170416-story.html

 

[pa22word]

It's illegal to ballot for secession anyway as secession is flatly illegal and considered an act of rebellion so the petition effort seems pointless, and frankly utterly stupid.

We really need to do a much better job teaching kids in this country about the civil war.

 

[Gallbaro]

White v. Texas

 

[entremet]

Never happening.

 

[Matt]

It's illegal to ballot for secession anyway as secession is flatly illegal and considered an act of rebellion so the petition effort seems pointless, and frankly utterly stupid.

We really need to do a much better job teaching kids in this country about the civil war.

No it's not...

Also, unilateral secession is unconstitutional, not secession.

But all that said, yes this is really stupid.

 

[Beartruck]

How about no. Without California Democrats would never win another presidency.

 

[killertofu]

This is moronic.

 

[Sinfamy]

The fresh smell of treason in the morning.

 

[Slayven]

Why are people entertaining this?

 

[pa22word]

Why are people entertaining this?

sour grapes

You get the same thing in texas everytime a D wins

No it's not...

Also, unilateral secession is unconstitutional, not secession.

But all that said, yes this is really stupid.

Well okay, they could potentially petition congress to ask to let them seceded, but even if congress votes to allow it (which I doubt they'd even bring it to a vote much less vote on it) I'd bet money the Supreme Court strikes down anyway as unconstitutional.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Nice too see Cunt Farage still finding a place for his talents.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

Nice too see Cunt Farage still finding a place for his talents.

Ironic that little cock is doing his best to interfere with a foreign nation - the exact thing he whines about the EU.

 

[numble]

It's illegal to ballot for secession anyway as secession is flatly illegal and considered an act of rebellion so the petition effort seems pointless, and frankly utterly stupid.

We really need to do a much better job teaching kids in this country about the civil war.

Every year from 1907, the Philippine Assembly (and later the Philippine Legislature) passed resolutions expressing the Filipino desire for independence, the US granted it in 1935 (or 1946, depending on how pendantic you want to be).

Puerto Rico has balloted for secession in 1967, 1993, 1998 and 2012.

 

[pa22word]

Every year from 1907, the Philippine Assembly (and later the Philippine Legislature) passed resolutions expressing the Filipino desire for independence, the US granted it in 1935 (or 1946, depending on how pendantic you want to be).

Puerto Rico has balloted for secession in 1967, 1993, 1998 and 2012.

Those aren't US states

 

[Matt]

sour grapes

You get the same thing in texas everytime a D wins




Well okay, they could potentially petition congress to ask to let them seceded, but even if congress votes to allow it (which I doubt they'd even bring it to a vote much less vote on it) I'd bet money the Supreme Court strikes down anyway as unconstitutional.

Of course they wouldn't. But why did you think this ballot measure was illegal?

 

[pa22word]

Of course they wouldn't. But why did you think this ballot measure was illegal?

Illegal was probably the wrong word. I'd go with "most likely unconstitutional" if I posted that again, because I don't know if the Supreme Court would let a US state succeed even if congress granted it.

 

[Gattsu25]

Some background information on one of the CalExit proponents:

KQED’s The California Report: https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/12/1...ia-calexit-leader-plots-california-secession/

On paper, the leader of the California secession movement lives in an apartment complex near San Diego’s Golden Hill neighborhood. But in reality, the Calexit campaign is being run by a 30-year-old who lives and works in a city on the edge of Siberia. Louis Marinelli heads the secessionist group Yes California. Following the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the organization has gone from an unknown fringe group to one discussed seriously in mainstream media.

What has not been discussed as prominently is Marinelli’s deep ties to Russia. A former right-wing activist from Buffalo, New York, Marinelli first moved to Russia almost a decade ago. He studied at St. Petersburg State University, the alma mater of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He returned to the United States to campaign against LGBTQ rights as part of the National Organization for Marriage. Marinelli then returned to Russia. He would marry a Russian citizen, and the couple moved to San Diego, where Marinelli launched a political career based on a platform of California secession.

“I immigrated to California, and I consider myself to be a Californian,” Marinelli says from his apartment in Yekaterinburg, a city of about 1.4 million just east of the Ural Mountains and about 1,000 miles from Moscow.

The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...hind-a-secession-effort-in-california/517890/

On December 18, 2018, Russia Today, a media outlet controlled by the Kremlin, reported that “a campaign calling for the independence of California from the United States has opened an ‘embassy’ in Moscow. The movement, Yes California, is hoping for a ‘Calexit’ break from the US. Speaking at a press conference on Sunday, Louis Marinelli, leader of the movement, said the embassy will not deal with diplomatic issues, but will act as more of a cultural center that will educate Russians about California's history, boost trade ties and promote tourism.”

How does a fledgling secession movement with little grassroots support afford a Moscow “embassy”? Snopes says a group funded by the Kremlin is letting them use the space for free.

Over the weekend, Marinelli gave a television interview to MSNBC host Alex Witt. “Do you think people might grow skeptical and concerned that this movement is just part of a bigger strategy by the Kremlin to destabilize the West?” she asked.

“Sure, we believe that’s certainly a reasonable skepticism for people to have,” Marinelli said, “but the truth of the matter is that the American government has for a long time tried to rally the American public against Russia no matter what the issue is.”

That wasn’t quite a denial, was it?

 

[Matt]

Illegal was probably the wrong word. I'd go with "most likely unconstitutional" if I posted that again, because I don't know if the Supreme Court would let a US state succeed even if congress granted it.

Even if secession was found to be unconstitutional, advocateing and balloting for it certainly wouldn't be.

 

[Gallbaro]

Even if secession was found to be unconstitutional, advocateing and balloting for it certainly wouldn't be.

It was.

 

[Matt]

It was.

No, again, that's unilateral secession.

A state can't leave the union on its own, and the federal government can't kick a state out.

But, again, this is an academic debate.

 

[pa22word]

Even if secession was found to be unconstitutional, advocateing and balloting for it certainly wouldn't be.

Because if secession is flatly illegal then the state in question would be arguably inciting rebellion simply by having it on the ballot.

 

[IISANDERII]

Why are people entertaining this?

Because people want a better life.

 

[darkhunger]

It was.

Secession with the consent of other states was specifically mentioned as a possible way to do it in one of the Supreme Court rulings.

 

[SolarPowered]

You can never leave, California. The union would go to shit without you.

 

[pa22word]

Because people want a better life.

Secession is an act of rebellion. If you think that brings a better life ask the people of Georgia how much better their life was after Sherman cut and pillaged a fiery path of destruction through their state.

 

[Matt]

Because if secession is flatly illegal then the state in question would be arguably inciting rebellion simply by having it on the ballot.

Well, it isn't, and if it was, no federal crimes would be broken until a state actually tried to break away. It being on a ballot would not be a federal issue.

 

[Gallbaro]

No, again, that's unilateral secession.

A state can't leave the union on its own, and the federal government can't kick a state out.

But, again, this is an academic debate.

Ah, I got you.

 

[numble]

Those aren't US states

I don't see how the rules are different. Filipinos were subject to the US Constitution and Puerto Ricans are also subject to the US Constitution presently, they would still be "rebelling" based on your definition of "rebelling".

Illegal was probably the wrong word. I'd go with "most likely unconstitutional" if I posted that again, because I don't know if the Supreme Court would let a US state succeed even if congress granted it.

Even in Texas v. White the Supreme Court suggests a US state can secede if the secession is not unilateral.

 

[shem935]

Good. It's a dumb idea.

 

[woolley]

Even.if the possible happened and Cali seceded do people really think their economy would continue to be prosperous? Being part of the Union is what allows Cali be in the position its in economically.

 

[pa22word]

I don't see how the rules are different.

I mean we literally fought a war over it.

Even in Texas v. White the Supreme Court suggests a US state can secede if the secession is not unilateral

Short of a constitutional convention being called to grant new framework to allow secession I don't see any real way of their being a successful secession without it being unilateral.

 

[numble]

I mean we literally fought a war over it.

There have been wars fought over US territories rebelling as well. Many of the wars against Native Americans in the early 18th century, for instance, as well as the Utah War.

Short of a constitutional convention being called to grant new framework to allow secession I don't see any real way of their being a successful secession without it being unilateral.

There can be no successful secession that is unilateral because a unilateral secession is unconstitutional.

In terms of a constitutional secession, just follow the example of the territories that seceded and may potentially secede. Congress represents the states. The territory (Philippines or Puerto Rico) asks Congress for independence and it is granted by Congress. Congress even overrode a presidential veto to try to grant a territory independence.

 

[PeskyToaster]

You can argue semantics all you want but there's not enough support for this to be entertained and the state would be forcefully shown the errors of its ways if it got to that point which it won't and it's not close to. It's weird that it keeps being brought up since it seemed like a joke hashtag at first.

 

[King Gilga]

Secession is an act of rebellion. If you think that brings a better life ask the people of Georgia how much better their life was after Sherman cut and pillaged a fiery path of destruction through their state.

So much for the land of the free eh?

 

[RoninChaos]

This was stupid when Texas wanted to do it and it's still stupid now.

 

[Froyo Love]

Even.if the possible happened and Cali seceded do people really think their economy would continue to be prosperous? Being part of the Union is what allows Cali be in the position its in economically.

And yet, Brexit. California's secession is not a popular idea, but it being unpopular has little to do with whether it's a wise idea.

 

[TarNaru33]

I don't see how the rules are different. Filipinos were subject to the US Constitution and Puerto Ricans are also subject to the US Constitution presently, they would still be "rebelling" based on your definition of "rebelling".

There are significant differences between states and territories you know. The rules are very much different in that no one will doubt that Kansas is American for example, but many people in U.S probably don't even know about Guam.

In theory it isn't different, but you would find it hard pressed to use the same way the Philippines stopped being a U.S territory to leave U.S when you are a state.

 

[miller.skippins]

California should study how Singapore broke away from the Malaysia federation in 1965.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Why argue about a fake movement.

 

[woolley]

And yet, Brexit. California's secession is not a popular idea, but it being unpopular has little to do with whether it's a wise idea.

The major difference being the UK is still its own independent country with or without the EU with its own currency.

 

[numble]

There are significant differences between states and territories you know. The rules are very much different in that no one will doubt that Kansas is American for example, but many people in U.S probably don't even know about Guam.

In theory it isn't different, but you would find it hard pressed to use the same way the Philippines stopped being a U.S territory to leave U.S when you are a state.

What, the rules provide that a person in Guam is equal to a person in Kansas. Where do the rules say differently?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

I don't really understand how you can say "the rules are very much different" and "in theory it isn't different". Sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[bggrthnjsus]

this is a dumb fake movement with weird possible (probable?) russian ties that should never (will never?) take hold

 

[Matt]

There are significant differences between states and territories you know. The rules are very much different in that no one will doubt that Kansas is American for example, but many people in U.S probably don't even know about Guam.

In theory it isn't different, but you would find it hard pressed to use the same way the Philippines stopped being a U.S territory to leave U.S when you are a state.

Well actually no, there are big legal differences between states and territories.

 

[pa22word]

In terms of a constitutional secession, just follow the example of the territories that seceded and may potentially secede. Congress represents the states. The territory (Philippines or Puerto Rico) asks Congress for independence and it is granted by Congress. Congress even overrode a presidential veto to try to grant a territory independence.

From Texas v White decision:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

I'm struggling to see any path here for legal succession, unilaterally or otherwise. If the union (bolded, because a territory is not part of the Union of States) is perpetual then any attempt to break it is indeed unconstitutional, unilateral or otherwise, no? As I said, I struggle to see any path that doesn't start with a constitutional convention to lead to any form of succession.

 

[shnurgleton]

Even if they did manage to get it organized, they'd basically be condemning the rest of the country to unopposed GOP rule.

We need you, CA.

 

[Seth Enosh]

From Texas v White decision:



I'm struggling to see any path here for legal succession, unilaterally or otherwise. If the union (bolded, because a territory is not part of the Union of States) is perpetual then any attempt to break it is indeed unconstitutional, unilateral or otherwise, no? As I said, I struggle to see any path that doesn't start with a constitutional convention to lead to any form of succession.

A couple paragraphs later:

6. When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.​

For what it's worth, if California seceded with the consent of congress and the president, I don't see what it matters what the law is. No one would stop them unless there was a war and only Congress can declare war and only the president could order the military to attack them.

CA secession is a pretty silly idea though.

 

[Brandson]

California could just take the Trump approach: do whatever they want, whether it's legal/constitutional or not and dare someone with legal authority to enforce the law. Republican leadership might even support the idea as it would give them a lock on power over the rest of the US, which they care more about than anything else.

 

[numble]

From Texas v White decision:



I'm struggling to see any path here for legal succession, unilaterally or otherwise. If the union (bolded, because a territory is not part of the Union of States) is perpetual then any attempt to break it is indeed unconstitutional, unilateral or otherwise, no? As I said, I struggle to see any path that doesn't start with a constitutional convention to lead to any form of succession.

The holding regarding secession is in the following:

There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

 

[zeemumu]

We're not leaving and we're not splitting the state into 5 poor states and one super rich state.

 

[dsp]

Why argue about a fake movement.

Exactly my feelings on this.